In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins presents a scale of belief in god, it has often been refered to as the "Dawkins Scale".
1. Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I
strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are
exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God
is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
Where do you sit on this scale?
I'm incredibly close to being a 7. Problem is it is hard to say there is no god for sure, when there is no clear definition of what a god is.
I am a clear and strident 6. Many of my "agnostic" friends say that if I am not a 7, then I'm not an atheist. "You have to be 100% certain", they say. No rational scientific thinker is going to be 100% certain about anything. I think they just don't want to be "labeled" an atheist. Oh agnostics ::)
"The responsible scientist, that is, respects the fact that she is not absolutely certain, and is thus ready to be proved wrong. Indeed, any responsible scientist can tell you what evidence would cause her to abandon her hypothesis; whereas it is the rare religious believer indeed who is able to do this." - Troy Jollimore
Quote from: Stevil on August 04, 2011, 07:41:12 PM
I'm incredibly close to being a 7. Problem is it is hard to say there is no god for sure, when there is no clear definition of what a god is.
Well I used to say I was a 6 in my head and a 7 in my heart.
Quote from: Awolf26 on August 04, 2011, 07:43:46 PM
I am a clear and strident 6. Many of my "agnostic" friends say that if I am not a 7, then I'm not an atheist. "You have to be 100% certain", they say. No rational scientific thinker is going to be 100% certain about anything. I think they just don't want to be "labeled" an atheist. Oh agnostics ::)
"The responsible scientist, that is, respects the fact that she is not absolutely certain, and is thus ready to be proved wrong. Indeed, any responsible scientist can tell you what evidence would cause her to abandon her hypothesis; whereas it is the rare religious believer indeed who is able to do this." - Troy Jollimore
Agreed. I must say I'm enjoying your posts Awolf26.
Quote from: Tank on August 04, 2011, 07:47:06 PM
Agreed. I must say I'm enjoying your posts Awolf26.
Thanks!
For me, when improbability gets to a certain point it is equivalent to definite nonexistence. I am happy to state that Russel's teapot is definitely not up there - philosophers and logicians say it just might be, but we all know it's not. For me, it's the same with god. Thus I can with honesty tick 7 and not 6.
I guess I am a 6, only because my pet rat might be God. XD
But seriously.. I'm 99.9% certain. And I do live by "even if a god/gods exist, I could care fucking less. " :D
A 6...I can't rule out the involvement of something beyond our current understanding of reality that could be the cause of all that exists and can think of way in which that something could rightly be labeled god; but given the lack of proof I have no reason to think that anything fitting the god label (or supernatural for that matter) exists.
Quote from: Whitney on August 05, 2011, 05:02:48 PM
A 6...I can't rule out the involvement of something beyond our current understanding of reality that could be the cause of all that exists and can think of way in which that something could rightly be labeled god; but given the lack of proof I have no reason to think that anything fitting the god label (or supernatural for that matter) exists.
So to be a god this entity has to have created all of existence?
This is an action rather than a being. To be considered as human I don't have to have created a house, or have made an omellete for that matter.
Quote from: Stevil on August 05, 2011, 07:38:50 PM
So to be a god this entity has to have created all of existence?
I take the word god to mean a being that created all that exists.
A highly intelligent alien who evolved into existence by natural processes yet has the ability to create other beings would not be a god.
Quote from: Stevil on August 05, 2011, 07:38:50 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 05, 2011, 05:02:48 PM
A 6...I can't rule out the involvement of something beyond our current understanding of reality that could be the cause of all that exists and can think of way in which that something could rightly be labeled god; but given the lack of proof I have no reason to think that anything fitting the god label (or supernatural for that matter) exists.
So to be a god this entity has to have created all of existence?
This is an action rather than a being. To be considered as human I don't have to have created a house, or have made an omellete for that matter.
But isn't it an act only God could carry out and an entity that could not do that could not be God (in the Xian/Muslim/Jewish sense)?
Quote from: Tank on August 05, 2011, 07:44:00 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 05, 2011, 07:38:50 PM
So to be a god this entity has to have created all of existence?
This is an action rather than a being. To be considered as human I don't have to have created a house, or have made an omellete for that matter.
But isn't it an act only God could carry out and an entity that could not do that could not be God (in the Xian/Muslim/Jewish sense)?
As an Atheist I don't think we should limit the definition of god to the Christian/Muslim/Jewish sense. It seems to me they define a personality as their god rather than define what a god is.
A better description might be
A god is not constrained by space, time or substance.
A god has the ability to conjure up energy/matter at will from nothing.
A god is an intelligent entity and can understand information can derive knowledge and can make informed decisions and act unconstrained upon those decisions.
But it seems that YHWH doesn't even need to prove any of the requirements of a god. People just say that they know that YHWH exists, that they know that YHWH created existence, that they know that YHWH is all powerful, all knowing.
I am just not clear what would define a god and hence how we can recognise one when we see one. If you merely state that a god was the entity that created existence then you will never know who is god unless you can go back in time and see this entity perform this one time act. After this one time act has been performed now this god becomes redundant. Just seems like a fill of the gap of knowledge with regards to understanding where energy/matter came from.
I'd have to say a 6. In fact, if when I died and I found that there was a God, I would have a few things to say to him.
I don't have a problem with God(s) so much as I have about the people who supposedly worship them.
I'm a 6. The fact is I don't even get into if God exists questions anymore.
Here is the truth for me. And though it may confuse people, it's the simple answer I always give when asked.
God does not exist for me.
I word it that way for a reason. If God were to come down and float down in a white chariot and said TADA! I would say who cares? Not I. I choose to live in my world where God does not exist for me.
I would place myself at 6.
I can't say that there is no god, becuase that knowledge IMO is out of reach, but I don't believe in any gods.
Sure there possibility of there being a god is there, but so is the possibility that we're actually in a matrix-like simulation. Just throwing possibilities out there means nothing.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 06, 2011, 05:30:57 PM
I would place myself at 6.
I can't say that there is no god, becuase that knowledge IMO is out of reach, but I don't believe in any gods.
Sure there possibility of there being a god is there, but so is the possibility that we're actually in a matrix-like simulation. Just throwing possibilities out there means nothing.
What is possible may also not be probable but in fact very improbable.
Quote from: Tank on August 06, 2011, 05:39:52 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 06, 2011, 05:30:57 PM
I would place myself at 6.
I can't say that there is no god, becuase that knowledge IMO is out of reach, but I don't believe in any gods.
Sure there possibility of there being a god is there, but so is the possibility that we're actually in a matrix-like simulation. Just throwing possibilities out there means nothing.
What is possible may also not be probable but in fact very improbable.
That's how I see the possibility of any version of a theistic god (which are always elaborate), who even though is essentially mysterious, has defined characteristics, traits and personality.
I'm 6+
6
The proportion (on the limited vote so far) of 6's to 7's here is higher than at RDF. Hope we get some more votes here.
More people vote~ :D
6. I agree with Stevil thay there is no clear definition of a god. Although, I am positive that YHWH does not exist.
6.942123182+ to be exact ;D
Quote from: Tom62 on August 23, 2011, 07:36:30 PM
6.942123182+ to be exact ;D
LOL
Um...looks like you've given the belief scale quite some thought ;)
I'm with most here at a 6. I suppose if there was some really good proof I might concede to the existence, though it would have to be amazing proof after which I still wouldn't much care. Besides, at this point if I were to find out there was a god, all my friends are headed for hell anyway; no point breaking up the party.
Quote from: DaemonWulf on August 23, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
I'm with most here at a 6. I suppose if there was some really good proof I might concede to the existence, though it would have to be amazing proof after which I still wouldn't much care. Besides, at this point if I were to find out there was a god, all my friends are headed for hell anyway; no point breaking up the party.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I'm a 3... but I don't see this scale as an optimal representation.
It mixes "Belief" with "Knowledge" into a single ranking - guess I'd prefer to see them split.
3 is the loneliest number (at least here ;-)
JoeActor
6 plus change...
6.5+
7 as far as the gods of Christianity, Islam or any other religion go, 6 when it comes to a more general deism
^ I like this.
I'm also 7 as far as christian and islamic gods.
If god means something that created everything, then I'm a 6.
If god means any of the gods ever made up by humans, then I'd have to go with being a 7.
Somewhere between 6 and 7. Human made religions worship human made and imaginary deities, but that doesn't mean that what we might consider "god" couldn't exist.
This is interesting. So far the proportion of 7's here is considerably lower than at RDF. But we do have a much lower sample so far.
It is interesting, Tank. A lot of us seem to 6.5.
And we all seem to agree even IF THERE is a god(s), religion is bogus.
I'd love to know the four 7s that replied. They must be uber smart and know everything! Maybe I can convince them to give up the Lotto numbers so I can become a billionare! :P
6 for me.
A 7 is for when all there is to be learned has been learned. Otherwise a 7 is rationally overinflated... a little hysterical even...
At this point in my life, with the information I have, I am a 7. If other information becomes available to me that could sway me otherwise I will listen to it, but I truly believe there is no god. I don't think that means the journey is over and I have reached my permanent conclusion, just that right now, I am 7.
Quote from: Tank on August 31, 2011, 08:59:36 AM
This is interesting. So far the proportion of 7's here is considerably lower than at RDF. But we do have a much lower sample so far.
Does that not say more about their decision-making than their beliefs?
RD himself is a 6. If it's good enough for him...
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 09, 2011, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 31, 2011, 08:59:36 AM
This is interesting. So far the proportion of 7's here is considerably lower than at RDF. But we do have a much lower sample so far.
Does that not say more about their decision-making than their beliefs?
RD himself is a 6. If it's good enough for him...
90% of the people who proclaimed themselves '7s' did so on the basis of intuitive leaps that god simple could not exist, most the remainder cited the total lack of any evidence for god as sufficient 'inverse proof' to state that god did not exist.
Quote from: Tank on September 09, 2011, 09:24:03 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 09, 2011, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 31, 2011, 08:59:36 AM
This is interesting. So far the proportion of 7's here is considerably lower than at RDF. But we do have a much lower sample so far.
Does that not say more about their decision-making than their beliefs?
RD himself is a 6. If it's good enough for him...
90% of the people who proclaimed themselves '7s' did so on the basis of intuitive leaps that god simple could not exist, most the remainder cited the total lack of any evidence for god as sufficient 'inverse proof' to state that god did not exist.
Intuitive leaps do not constitute good science - neither does inverse proof. Cetrtainly not to the tune of 100%. That is exactly the flawed thinking of which they accuse the religious righteous. Crikey, and this from Dawkinsian accolytes... Pots and kettles... Shame on them!
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 09, 2011, 09:34:15 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 09, 2011, 09:24:03 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 09, 2011, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 31, 2011, 08:59:36 AM
This is interesting. So far the proportion of 7's here is considerably lower than at RDF. But we do have a much lower sample so far.
Does that not say more about their decision-making than their beliefs?
RD himself is a 6. If it's good enough for him...
90% of the people who proclaimed themselves '7s' did so on the basis of intuitive leaps that god simple could not exist, most the remainder cited the total lack of any evidence for god as sufficient 'inverse proof' to state that god did not exist.
Intuitive leaps do not constitute good science - neither does inverse proof. Cetrtainly not to the tune of 100%. That is exactly the flawed thinking of which they accuse the religious righteous. Crikey, and this from Dawkinsian accolytes... Pots and kettles... Shame on them!
Well Dawkins was making the point with the '7' that some atheists are not immune to letting their hearts rule their heads. Although I have seen some arguments that are very well constructed that could conceivably support the position 'God does not exist, because etc."
Quote from: Tank on September 09, 2011, 09:40:26 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 09, 2011, 09:34:15 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 09, 2011, 09:24:03 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 09, 2011, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 31, 2011, 08:59:36 AM
This is interesting. So far the proportion of 7's here is considerably lower than at RDF. But we do have a much lower sample so far.
Does that not say more about their decision-making than their beliefs?
RD himself is a 6. If it's good enough for him...
90% of the people who proclaimed themselves '7s' did so on the basis of intuitive leaps that god simple could not exist, most the remainder cited the total lack of any evidence for god as sufficient 'inverse proof' to state that god did not exist.
Intuitive leaps do not constitute good science - neither does inverse proof. Cetrtainly not to the tune of 100%. That is exactly the flawed thinking of which they accuse the religious righteous. Crikey, and this from Dawkinsian accolytes... Pots and kettles... Shame on them!
Well Dawkins was making the point with the '7' that some atheists are not immune to letting their hearts rule their heads. Although I have seen some arguments that are very well constructed that could conceivably support the position 'God does not exist, because etc."
Yeah, I'm all for a positive argument well put and I respect a 7 conscientiously derived. But I suppose the atheist community is not immune from rash bullheadedness and tunnel vision. Boy, have I got my work cut out to change the world... ;D
How in the nonexistent hell are there two "1's" up there?
I like the number 7. No one knows, and that's the end of the argument, but looking at astrology, theological history, and the post-constantine political benefit of religion, I'd bet my life on the nonexistence of any Deity. Well, I guess in a sense I AM betting my life on it. When asked how I think the universe came to be, I give that answer that best sums everything up: Shit Happens.
Quote from: fyv0h on September 10, 2011, 12:40:39 AM
How in the nonexistent hell are there two "1's" up there?
I like the number 7.
A one is no different to a 7, both require a belief.
A 7 puts burdon of proof onto the theory, a 1 puts burdon of proof onto those disproving the theory.
I put BOP onto the theory too, but I remain a 6 until there is proof either way.
Quote from: Stevil on September 10, 2011, 12:57:40 AM
Quote from: fyv0h on September 10, 2011, 12:40:39 AM
How in the nonexistent hell are there two "1's" up there?
I like the number 7.
A one is no different to a 7, both require a belief.
A 7 puts burdon of proof onto the theory, a 1 puts burdon of proof onto those disproving the theory.
I put BOP onto the theory too, but I remain a 6 until there is proof either way.
Well said. As I mentioned, it's without proof either way. But I'd bet a fiery rod in my pee hole that it doesn't exist. Everything is so very stacked against. But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and I'll chill in hell with a toasty pee hole for the rest of eternity. :D
Haha!! Let's chill together and have frozen hot chocolate. :D
Quote from: fyv0h on September 10, 2011, 12:40:39 AM
How in the nonexistent hell are there two "1's" up there?
{snip}
I'd guess at two members here who would wear that badge with pride, and that's fine for them.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 10, 2011, 08:05:18 AM
Haha!! Let's chill together and have frozen hot chocolate. :D
Sure thing!
Seriously, if there is a Serendipity in your area, go there and try it nooow~
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 12, 2011, 12:19:17 AM
Seriously, if there is a Serendipity in your area, go there and try it nooow~
I don't even know where to start. I guess a "what the heck is a Serendipity" would suffice, unless you're actually talking about the word "serendipity," in which case you still lost me.
It's the name of a famous cafe.
I know not the definition of the real term. XD
The closest thing we have here is "Serendipity Gourmet Deli." The cafe is in NYC, says Google. Next time I visit NYC, I'll be certain to check it out. Well, if I can get away from the vendor food and Jekyll and Hyde's. I miss being there :(
I still haven't been to J&H. Only because everything scares me...
Despite my love for surivival horror games, and korean + japanese horror films.
It's a great pub!! I love the place! I highly recommend trying it out!
Quote from: fyv0h on September 12, 2011, 01:29:06 AM
It's a great pub!! I love the place! I highly recommend trying it out!
I'm scared of skeletons. Does the staff dress up?
They do! But it's more like being in a B rated horror flick than anything. It's just a great atmosphere.
i voted 5, though this may be dishonest.
i suspect God does exist, but i readily admit i have no prove of it.
i am beginning lean towards agnostic, and the God i believe in isn't really the God of the bible.
(which i think Dawkins was refering to.)
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 26, 2011, 02:29:44 PM
God i believe in isn't really the God of the bible.
(which i think Dawkins was refering to.)
Works for the vast majority of gods within organised religion, not just the Abrahamic one.
I sometimes manage to paralyse myself with over-analytical thought. I can waste embarrassing amounts of time and energy in beautifully useless circular thought patterns but I'm delighted to say that it is many years since I last wasted even one second in doubt as to whether a God may exist.
Having said that I'm not arrogant enough to insist that I absolutely must be right. I'm only a hairy ape after all!
So, I'm a 6 in company and 7 when I'm alone.
Quote from: saulgood on September 27, 2011, 11:26:33 PM
I sometimes manage to paralyse myself with over-analytical thought. I can waste embarrassing amounts of time and energy in beautifully useless circular thought patterns but I'm delighted to say that it is many years since I last wasted even one second in doubt as to whether a God may exist.
Having said that I'm not arrogant enough to insist that I absolutely must be right. I'm only a hairy ape after all!
So, I'm a 6 in company and 7 when I'm alone.
That's a very good way of putting it, I agree as I'm like that too.
I'm struggling a little with regards to what the difference is between a 6 and a 7 and where I sit, thus far I have been saying 6.
We both live our lives as if there is no god. We would both accept that god exists if shown conclusive proof.
I certainly have no fear of hell or the wrath of god or that my lack of belief will lead me to eternal torture.
But the more I think about it, the harder I get. Hard Atheism that is (take your mind out of the gutter). Maybe I do believe that there is no god. Nothing to be ashamed of in having a belief. But I am certainly not going to try and convince others, I have no proof to back up my stance. Just an ability to point out the empty void with regards to evidence in favour of the god theories. I am unconvinced to the point that these theories may as well not exist.
I think the issue that Dawkins was trying to raise awarness of was that there could be a 1 and a 7, but a rational person can be neither as God can neither be absolutly proved nor disproved.
Quote from: Tank on September 28, 2011, 10:37:20 AM
I think the issue that Dawkins was trying to raise awarness of was that there could be a 1 and a 7, but a rational person can be neither as God can neither be absolutly proved nor disproved.
I think people start out as rational 6s but then are struck by an onslaught of madness and five units of separation just isn't enough.
I can sympathise, I feel the pain, but shaky sixes, don't let the ones drive you to extremity.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 28, 2011, 02:27:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 28, 2011, 10:37:20 AM
I think the issue that Dawkins was trying to raise awarness of was that there could be a 1 and a 7, but a rational person can be neither as God can neither be absolutly proved nor disproved.
I think people start out as rational 6s but then are struck by an onslaught of madness and five units of separation just isn't enough.
I can sympathise, I feel the pain, but shaky sixes, don't let the ones drive you to extremity.
That is very true. Before I had been exposed to some people like SuperiorEd I used to be relativley benevolent towards Christians, I wouldn't give them an inch now, under almost any circumstances.
I've also put myself as a 6, which seems to be a popular choice with most of us on seeing the results. If someone asked me if there is a god, I would reply, 'I don't know.' But if they asked if I believe there is a god, I'd say not on your nelly!
The scary thing is that I have yet to meet a theist that didn't, in some way or another, increase my atheism ;D
Quote from: Tank on October 05, 2011, 04:12:19 PM
The scary thing is that I have yet to meet a theist that didn't, in some way or another, increase my atheism ;D
"Thank god I'm an atheist," eh? Now that you mention it, while I have met a few Xtians who made me think that religion isn't a total loss for those who need it, none of them has made me think "maybe I should give it another go".
Absolutely a 7 for me, I know there is no god. How do I know? Because there is no evidence of his existence. Why is that? Because there is no god. Easy.
Just because I cannot disprove the existence of a non existent, needless, stupid, made up entity, does not necessarily mean that there is even a tiny chance of him existing.
I can see why scientists and hardcore debators would say "6 - as sure as I can be, but cannot rule it out" because they don't want to be left open to attack by the "you can't prove there is no god" brigade. But personally, that doesn't bother me.
In fact if there was an 8 on the scale, I'd be it.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 14, 2011, 01:39:17 AM
Absolutely a 7 for me, I know there is no god. How do I know? Because there is no evidence of his existence. Why is that? Because there is no god. Easy.
I'm a 2 on the other end of the scale, but I don't think anyone can be a 1 or a 7 and still claim to be taking a totally rational position. Consider if I said: "Absolutely a 1 for me, I know there is a God. How do I know? Because I have encountered Him. How do I know I encountered Him? Because He exists. Easy." I would be taking essentially the same position as you are taking, just on the other end of the scale. 6 and 2 are as high as anyone can take and still be considered rational positions. On your end, there is probably no known evidence right now of a lot of things in the universe - but that evidence may surface someday. On my end, it may turn out that the God someone thinks they encountered is something else altogether. So nobody can justifiably be absolutely certain. Christians are agnostic because they don't actually know God exists - they only believe. Atheists are agnostic because they don't actually know - they simply have not been shown anything that indicates to them that God exists.
Definitely a 6 for me. As others have said, there is zero evidence to believe. I can't call myself a 7 because I'm not certain, no one is. Except of course for people who have a 'personal relationship' with jesus christ.
I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.
I'm also certain there are no unicorns, no fire breathing dragons and no santa claus, flying reindeers and elves.
People can call me irrational all they like.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.
I'm also certain there are no unicorns, no fire breathing dragons and no santa claus, flying reindeers and elves.
People can call me irrational all they like.
You are not, as long as when confronted with conclusive evidence to the contrary, you amend your certainties. By that line of thought, I am a seven on the scale in terms of certainty, but only six in terms of mule-headedness about it. Thus, it's cathegory 6+ for me.
Quote from: Asmodean on October 23, 2011, 03:20:45 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.
I'm also certain there are no unicorns, no fire breathing dragons and no santa claus, flying reindeers and elves.
People can call me irrational all they like.
You are not, as long as when confronted with conclusive evidence to the contrary, you amend your certainties. By that line of thought, I am a seven on the scale in terms of certainty, but only six in terms of mule-headedness about it. Thus, it's cathegory 6+ for me.
If I can't be certain that there is no god I also cannot be certain that there is no santa claus, or no magical teapot orbiting the earth.
Not being certain there is no santa and not being certain that there is no magical teapot is of course absurd.
Let's all quit this philosophical bullshit and call it as we see it - there is no god.
I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.
Which is precisely my point.
As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.
Quote from: Asmodean on October 23, 2011, 03:32:39 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.
Which is precisely my point.
As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike a religious fundie would.
I said I was an 8 though ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on October 23, 2011, 03:32:39 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.
Which is precisely my point.
As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.
IMO that is exactly the point RD was getting at in his definition of 1 and 7.
Quote from: Tank on October 23, 2011, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on October 23, 2011, 03:32:39 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.
Which is precisely my point.
As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.
IMO that is exactly the point RD was getting at in his definition of 1 and 7.
I don't like the lack of absolute certainty of 6 though. That's not me.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 23, 2011, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on October 23, 2011, 03:32:39 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.
Which is precisely my point.
As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.
IMO that is exactly the point RD was getting at in his definition of 1 and 7.
I don't like the lack of absolute certainty of 6 though. That's not me.
I recall ISoK, one of our Muslim members, saying he didn't like a world view that lacked certainty ;D
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.
The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity. Lots of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong. To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism. In a word - irrational.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 12:50:59 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.
The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity. Lot's of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong. To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism. In a word - irrational.
Based on all available evidence I am certain that there is no god. I reject any possibility of god. However my feeling of certainty is exactly that, my feeling of certainty. Nowhere did I claim it was a fact.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 24, 2011, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 12:50:59 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.
The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity. Lot's of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong. To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism. In a word - irrational.
Based on all available evidence I am certain that there is no god. I reject any possibility of god. However my feeling of certainty is exactly that, my feeling of certainty. Nowhere did I claim it was a fact.
So how is this different than me rejecting all possibility of a planet revolving around a particular star in some far off galaxy? Right now, there may be absolutely no evidence available to us of such a planet revolving around such a star. Is that a rational basis for rejecting the possibility of such a planet? Of course not. We might not be capable of gathering the evidence for such a planet, based upon our current level of technology, yet such a planet may exist. It's existence does not depend upon our level of technology.
Similarly, we may simply not have the brain power at this stage of our evolution to discern the existence of a creator God, yet such a God may exist. His/her/its existence does not depend upon our level of brain power. It is frankly irrational to assert affirmatively and absolutely that something doesn't exist just because we do not currently possess any evidence of same. The most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe. For this reason, the most you can rationally claim is level 6, just as the most I can rationally claim is level 2 on the theist side.
QuoteThe most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe. For this reason, the most you can rationally claim is level 6, just as the most I can rationally claim is level 2 on the theist side.
I would agree that if you claim a 1 or a 7 on this scale, is it most likely due to an emotional inclination, but that doesn't make it any less "real". I can't say that I
know anything, but I can feel
certain about some things. Those feelings, I think, are the difference between a 6 and a 7, and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. When it comes down to that degree of knowledge/belief, you are getting into "gut feeling" territory.
I will never 100% definitively know that my husband loves me, but I'd stake my life on it. Just because we are atheist, it doesn't mean we are without human feeling or a little "illogical" emotional responses in our worldviews. If someone claims a 1 or a 7, I'm not going to argue with them about how they self-identify (even though, I, obviously, can't see the sense in someone labeling themselves as a "1"). It may seem arrogant for someone to claim and "absolute" point of view, but I think it's even more arrogant to try and tell someone that they don't believe and feel what they say they believe and feel.
I'm basically unhappy with the scale as it stands. A number of people have expressed the wish for an 8th option. I wouldn't click any point on the Dawkins scale but I would click on an 8. The question of the existence of god is unintelligible and so unanswerable and without interest. I would also support an 8. No human has ever had contact with any supernatural being. Those who claim the contrary are liars or delusional.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 12:50:59 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.
The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity. Lots of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong. To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism. In a word - irrational.
Sorry Bruce but I really don't understand how you can write something like that when you have admitted your epiphany happened on the day you had taken LSD and that your own reason for believing in God is subjective. Can you not appretiate that the argument you have used to attempt to discredit N&C's position applies one hundred fold to you?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:06:12 AM
So how is this different than me rejecting all possibility of a planet revolving around a particular star in some far off galaxy? Right now, there may be absolutely no evidence available to us of such a planet revolving around such a star.
What are you talking about? You haven't named the star.
If you were to name the star, and we have no evidence of a planet round that particular star, it would be ridiculous for me to say "I am certain that there is no planet orbiting that star" Why? Because we already KNOW that planets orbit the star in this solar system and orbit stars in other solar systems.
It would therefore be entirely
reasonable and rational to assume that there
could be a planet orbiting your example star, based on what we know FACTUALLY about other star systems.
This is not the case with your sky fairy, based on the evidence available and what we know FACTUALLY about invisible made up shit, it is not reasonable to assume that could be a god. Some may want to add the caveat "though this may change based on new evidence" - hell even I would go along with that caveat.
QuoteIs that a rational basis for rejecting the possibility of such a planet? Of course not. We might not be capable of gathering the evidence for such a planet, based upon our current level of technology, yet such a planet may exist. It's existence does not depend upon our level of technology.
No sane person would reject the possibility of a random planet orbiting a random star based on what we already know, and based on technological levels which mean we can't identify every planet around every star. Like I just said above. Your comparson is bunk, and utterly pointless.
QuoteSimilarly, we may simply not have the brain power at this stage of our evolution to discern the existence of a creator God, yet such a God may exist.
This is just guesswork and wishful thinking from you. Let's deal with reality - there is nothing in reality to suggest a god, unlike the planet comparison which you used which is very based in reality.
QuoteHis/her/its existence does not depend upon our level of brain power.
Correct, but pointless to the debate.
QuoteIt is frankly irrational to assert affirmatively and absolutely that something doesn't exist just because we do not currently possess any evidence of same.
No it absolutely is not irrational. As already discussed.
QuoteThe most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe.
That follows for most atheists and is logical.
QuoteFor this reason, the most you can rationally claim is level 6, just as the most I can rationally claim is level 2 on the theist side.
Let us not forget, when it comes down to it all, the Dawkins scale is a made up scale that means nothing in the scheme of things. I do not adhere to and set my standards by that scale, though if I did, I'd be a 7 - if it really meant anything.
I am certain there is no god, because there is zero evidence for his existence and zero real reason for his being.
If some supernatural ghosty stuff was already proven to exist (like some planets round other stars are proven to exist) then you could think "well a supernatural being that we just cannot detect is NOT out of the question - because we have proof that fairies at the bottom of the garden/ghosts/santa/whatever are REAL"
Where your argument falls down is that there are no other supernatural things to fall back on and say "well if that is real this god stuff is possible"
I think to state that god is possible is irrational, because there is no rational reason to accept his existence as a possibility!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:06:12 AM
It is frankly irrational to assert affirmatively and absolutely that something doesn't exist just because we do not currently possess any evidence of same.
This is immediately followed by:
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:06:12 AM
The most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe.
What?
Many of us can legitimately say that we have not been presented with
any evidence.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:06:12 AM
So how is this different than me rejecting all possibility of a planet revolving around a particular star in some far off galaxy? Right now, there may be absolutely no evidence available to us of such a planet revolving around such a star. Is that a rational basis for rejecting the possibility of such a planet? Of course not.
Depends.
If, for instance, someone says "There is a planet revolving around that star" and then I ask "Beause..?" and then that person says "Because there just is", I will say "Bullshit until proven otherwise".
While not a very good reason for rejecting the possibility, however remote, the lack of knowledge IS a good enough reason to reject unsubstantiated beliefs of others.
QuoteWe might not be capable of gathering the evidence for such a planet, based upon our current level of technology, yet such a planet may exist. It's existence does not depend upon our level of technology.
No, but unless we can demonstrate its existence, the default assumption should be that it does not unless there are known irregularities in that star's motion (Or whatever else gets the astronomers hot and sweaty :P ), or unless such an irregularity is later demonstrated.
QuoteSimilarly, we may simply not have the brain power at this stage of our evolution to discern the existence of a creator God, yet such a God may exist.
May, but there is no need for gods in our reality. Therefor, we must assume there are no such things until and unless it is demonstrated that they must exist in some shape or form to fulfill a specific function like that planet of yours would affect the star with its gravity.
QuoteHis/her/its existence does not depend upon our level of brain power. It is frankly irrational to assert affirmatively and absolutely that something doesn't exist just because we do not currently possess any evidence of same.
Oh, we can do that, as long as we modify our knowledge according to the standing facts. What we know today may not be what we will know tomorrow, but doubting the current verifiable knowledge is pointless unless such doubt is warranted.
QuoteThe most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe. For this reason, the most you can rationally claim is level 6, just as the most I can rationally claim is level 2 on the theist side.
When it comes to knowledge, you can easily claim either end of the scale, but when it comes to how you treat the standing evidence, I'd say your point is completely valid. I can, for instance, know for certain that my car is low on antifreeze. However, if when I fill some more, I disover that it was full to begin with, I will modify my knowledge accordingly. If I were a one or a seven on the antifreeze scale, I'd overfill it because my facts to me would be the only valid ones.
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that if theists cannot prove their god then it must be made up. Really you'd expect a bunch of people (numbering BILLIONS between them) to come up with at least one shred of evidence, and if not that, one genuine reason to believe.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 24, 2011, 02:59:35 PM
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that if theists cannot prove their god then it must be made up. Really you'd expect a bunch of people (numbering BILLIONS between them) to come up with at least one shred of evidence, and if not that, one genuine reason to believe.
If you haven't seen anything that convinces you or that strikes you as a genuine reason to believe, then your most rational position is a 6. At least that way you give the appearance of keeping your mind open to the possibility of evidence. A 7 or a 1 sort of ends all consideration. A 6 or a 2 at least leaves the light on in case a stray fact comes waddling up to your door.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 25, 2011, 02:33:10 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 24, 2011, 02:59:35 PM
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that if theists cannot prove their god then it must be made up. Really you'd expect a bunch of people (numbering BILLIONS between them) to come up with at least one shred of evidence, and if not that, one genuine reason to believe.
If you haven't seen anything that convinces you or that strikes you as a genuine reason to believe, then your most rational position is a 6. At least that way you give the appearance of keeping your mind open to the possibility of evidence. A 7 or a 1 sort of ends all consideration. A 6 or a 2 at least leaves the light on in case a stray fact comes waddling up to your door.
Sorry Bruce, but I strongly disagree. Without a meaningful definition of 'god' any point on the belief scale is meaningless. If I asked you, "do you believe in sillyigenfolszhangen?" what would be "your most rational position" on the scale? Give me a notion of "god" that has some semantic content -- something to hang a judgement of existence on -- and we can do business. I really don't know how anyone, theist or atheist can make judgements on things they can't define clearly. Boggles the mind.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 25, 2011, 02:33:10 AM
A 7 or a 1 sort of ends all consideration.
Yep, there is no point in conversing until you accept that god is made up. :)
Six, maybe six and a half. I'm as agnostic about a god as I am the tooth fairy. We can never be entirely sure of anything. Regardless, "atheist" is certainly the proper term, just as would be "atoothfairyist".
Only two others voted with me in knowing there is a God.... I feel outnumbered. eh. But I was surprised at the number who weren't certain there is no God, but think that it is improbable...
Quote from: not your typical... on November 10, 2011, 09:17:55 PM
Only two others voted with me in knowing there is a God.... I feel outnumbered. eh. But I was surprised at the number who weren't certain there is no God, but think that it is improbable...
Well this is an atheist forum so theists are likely to be in the minority and thus under represented in the poll. Most theists are mislead about atheism and why people are atheists, you are not alone in your surprise :)
Quote from: Tank on November 10, 2011, 11:05:16 PM
Most theists are mislead about atheism and why people are atheists
Yeah, that's why I joined the forum.
Note that the ratio of 1:2 is over 15 times higher than that of 7:6. This comes as no surprise since atheists are more likely to leave room for the unknown (science) whereas theists are more likely to be set in their ways (faith).
Quote from: not your typical... on November 10, 2011, 11:38:01 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 10, 2011, 11:05:16 PM
Most theists are mislead about atheism and why people are atheists
Yeah, that's why I joined the forum.
I'd sort of guessed that ;)
Quote from: not your typical... on November 10, 2011, 09:17:55 PM
Only two others voted with me in knowing there is a God.... I feel outnumbered. eh. But I was surprised at the number who weren't certain there is no God, but think that it is improbable...
I consider the existence of a god right in line with the existence of other supernatural things -- incredibly unlikely but on the other hand who knows? It's not like I'm clued in to all the mysteries of the universe.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 11, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
I consider the existence of a god right in line with the existence of other supernatural things -- incredibly unlikely but on the other hand who knows? It's not like I'm clued in to all the mysteries of the universe.
I like you. You're very open minded. :)
Quote from: not your typical... on November 11, 2011, 05:50:46 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 11, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
I consider the existence of a god right in line with the existence of other supernatural things -- incredibly unlikely but on the other hand who knows? It's not like I'm clued in to all the mysteries of the universe.
I like you. You're very open minded. :)
75% of atheists fall into the 'weak' category of 'no/insufficient reasonable evidence', rather than 'strong', 'I don't believe there is a God'.
Quote from: Tank on November 11, 2011, 06:32:52 PM
75% of atheists fall into the 'weak' category of 'no/insufficient reasonable evidence', rather than 'strong', 'I don't believe there is a God'.
Yeah, most of my friends fall into the 'strong' category. i tend to not really bother trying to prove there is one anymore. I can tell you only of what I've seen and my experiences and if you don't want to believe me, that's fine.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 11, 2011, 06:40:27 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 11, 2011, 06:32:52 PM
75% of atheists fall into the 'weak' category of 'no/insufficient reasonable evidence', rather than 'strong', 'I don't believe there is a God'.
Yeah, most of my friends fall into the 'strong' category. i tend to not really bother trying to prove there is one anymore. I can tell you only of what I've seen and my experiences and if you don't want to believe me, that's fine.
I'm not sure I follow your point. I have no reason to disbelieve you. The 75/25 split comes from following a number of topics like this on a number of different forums.
Quote from: Tank on November 11, 2011, 06:53:33 PM
I'm not sure I follow your point. I have no reason to disbelieve you. The 75/25 split comes from following a number of topics like this on a number of different forums.
Well, like when I tell them of the 'miracles' that have happened in my life, they'll just write it off as either good luck or a mystery that no one can answer, never giving any proof as of
why it is impossible for a God to have intervened, but still saying that there is no chance of there being a God. In all honesty, life experiences are probably the only reason I'm a Christian.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 11, 2011, 06:57:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 11, 2011, 06:53:33 PM
I'm not sure I follow your point. I have no reason to disbelieve you. The 75/25 split comes from following a number of topics like this on a number of different forums.
Well, like when I tell them of the 'miracles' that have happened in my life, they'll just write it off as either good luck or a mystery that no one can answer, never giving any proof as of why it is impossible for a God to have intervened, but still saying that there is no chance of there being a God. In all honesty, life experiences are probably the only reason I'm a Christian.
Thanks for the clarification I understand your point now :)
No prob. ;D
Quote from: not your typical... on November 11, 2011, 06:40:27 PM
i tend to not really bother trying to prove there is one anymore. I can tell you only of what I've seen and my experiences and if you don't want to believe me, that's fine.
That's pretty much like I think - it all boils down to personal experience. But since there is always the possibility that I could be deceived about my own personal experience, I can't claim to be "1" who "knows" there is a God. Knowledge, to me, is reserved for things that can be proven over and over.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 11, 2011, 09:17:07 PM
That's pretty much like I think - it all boils down to personal experience. But since there is always the possibility that I could be deceived about my own personal experience, I can't claim to be "1" who "knows" there is a God. Knowledge, to me, is reserved for things that can be proven over and over.
In my life, it has been proven over, and over again. Every time I begin to doubt, He gives me a reason not to.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 11, 2011, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 11, 2011, 09:17:07 PM
That's pretty much like I think - it all boils down to personal experience. But since there is always the possibility that I could be deceived about my own personal experience, I can't claim to be "1" who "knows" there is a God. Knowledge, to me, is reserved for things that can be proven over and over.
In my life, it has been proven over, and over again. Every time I begin to doubt, He gives me a reason not to.
I understand that sentiment.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 11, 2011, 09:25:03 PM
In my life, it has been proven over, and over again. Every time I begin to doubt, He gives me a reason not to.
He doesn't, because he is not real.
Your brain does, because it has a need to make up this being to comfort/strengthen you. Maybe it's good for you, but do you agree with the slaughter of over 2 million people by god in the bible?
How has god proven to you he exists? How has he taken away your doubts?
One person said to me once "I know god is real because my mother fell ill and should have died. We prayed and she didn't die" Is this the sort of thing you are talking about? My answer to that person (without wanting to sound to heartless) was that she just didn't die, because sometimes people don't die.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 11, 2011, 09:48:24 PM
He doesn't, because he is not real.
Your brain does, because it has a need to make up this being to comfort/strengthen you. Maybe it's good for you, but do you agree with the slaughter of over 2 million people by god in the bible?
How has god proven to you he exists? How has he taken away your doubts?
One person said to me once "I know god is real because my mother fell ill and should have died. We prayed and she didn't die" Is this the sort of thing you are talking about? My answer to that person (without wanting to sound to heartless) was that she just didn't die, because sometimes people don't die.
One way that He's proven himself to me is that when my mother was pregnant, she had double pneumonia, and the doctors said she wouldn't make it through the pregnancy. On top of this, she had a tumor in her uterus so it was unlikely that I'd be here too. They ended up not bothering to even give her medication anymore, claiming that, "It'll harm the baby." I ended up killing the tumor, (Mom says that's why I've got such a mean right hook.) and about 8 months after I was born, she woke up one morning feeling fine, no sickness, no nothing. You may just write it off and say it's a medical mystery, but I'm gonna believe it was God intervening. We can agree to disagree though, right? As for the slaughter, the Bible states clearly that God despises sin and can't even look at it, so when you put that into perspective, it's not all that suprising, at least not to me. But like I said, agree to disagree. I'm not here to preach my faith, but more so to learn about your philosophy.
General Note: If one is going to get into deep debate about why one is at a particular point on the Dawkins scale then it would be a good idea to start a new thread.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 11, 2011, 10:06:43 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 11, 2011, 09:48:24 PM
He doesn't, because he is not real.
Your brain does, because it has a need to make up this being to comfort/strengthen you. Maybe it's good for you, but do you agree with the slaughter of over 2 million people by god in the bible?
How has god proven to you he exists? How has he taken away your doubts?
One person said to me once "I know god is real because my mother fell ill and should have died. We prayed and she didn't die" Is this the sort of thing you are talking about? My answer to that person (without wanting to sound to heartless) was that she just didn't die, because sometimes people don't die.
One way that He's proven himself to me is that when my mother was pregnant, she had double pneumonia, and the doctors said she wouldn't make it through the pregnancy. On top of this, she had a tumor in her uterus so it was unlikely that I'd be here too. They ended up not bothering to even give her medication anymore, claiming that, "It'll harm the baby." I ended up killing the tumor, (Mom says that's why I've got such a mean right hook.) and about 8 months after I was born, she woke up one morning feeling fine, no sickness, no nothing. You may just write it off and say it's a medical mystery, but I'm gonna believe it was God intervening. We can agree to disagree though, right? As for the slaughter, the Bible states clearly that God despises sin and can't even look at it, so when you put that into perspective, it's not all that suprising, at least not to me. But like I said, agree to disagree. I'm not here to preach my faith, but more so to learn about your philosophy.
I'm afraid that is not nearly evidence of god.
Doctors sometimes get things wrong and misdiagnose the seriousness of something. You cannot say for sure that someone won't make it through a pregnancy or that they should die, you can only offer a best estimate based on previous experience. If someone makes it through a pregnancy or doesn't die, you just estimated wrong rather than god intervening. god can't intervene, as he is made up.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 11, 2011, 10:15:31 PM
I'm afraid that is not nearly evidence of god.
Doctors sometimes get things wrong and misdiagnose the seriousness of something. You cannot say for sure that someone won't make it through a pregnancy or that they should die, you can only offer a best estimate based on previous experience. If someone makes it through a pregnancy or doesn't die, you just estimated wrong rather than god intervening. god can't intervene, as he is made up.
And that's you're beliefs. I'm assuming you're apart of the few that are 100% certain that there is no possibility of there being a God. I have a friend who you'd probably get along with great. He wrote a 89 page essay on why Christianity is stupid, 90 is you count the page he wrote about me specifically.
Yes I'm 100% certain that there is no possibility of god, which is why to get back on topic, I'm a 7 on the Dawkins scale.
Give your friend a big "well done" from me.
I think when I was in my teens I believed that things happening around me were all part of a relationship I had with god and i was just following along trusting that there was something leading my family and i along to some important great plan or whatever. I'm glad to have that whole conspiracy theory over with.
If there was a 10 i would be that, but i can settle for 7.
Quoteno thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.
my atheism rises from an abundance of evidence against the christian god. so maybe I am more of a 6 or 5 if you want to propose there is some other god that made this universe that had nothing to do with the bible. but what a silly thing to suggest.
QuoteOne way that He's proven himself to me is that when my mother was pregnant, she had double pneumonia, and the doctors said she wouldn't make it through the pregnancy. On top of this, she had a tumor in her uterus so it was unlikely that I'd be here too. They ended up not bothering to even give her medication anymore, claiming that, "It'll harm the baby." I ended up killing the tumor, (Mom says that's why I've got such a mean right hook.) and about 8 months after I was born, she woke up one morning feeling fine, no sickness, no nothing. You may just write it off and say it's a medical mystery, but I'm gonna believe it was God intervening. We can agree to disagree though, right?
Well, the thing is, that doesn't adhere to any empiricist's standard for evidence. What it essentially boils down to is "I don't know, therefore god did it." In the infancy of our species, we postulated gods because we didn't know what caused things like thunder. It's the same psychological phenomenon.
Furthermore, I know (and was close to) a good man, who was a devout Christian all his life, who prayed fervently and went to church and taught his children to be Christian. He also just died after a horrifically grueling and painful battle with cancer, his prayers and the prayers of his family and friends and church having gone unanswered. If we apply the same criteria to this situation as to your mother's, then it would be evidence that god does
not exist. Of course, I don't think it's evidence for any such thing. I'm saying the criteria is insufficient.
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 13, 2011, 06:20:46 PM
Well, the thing is, that doesn't adhere to any empiricist's standard for evidence. What it essentially boils down to is "I don't know, therefore god did it." In the infancy of our species, we postulated gods because we didn't know what caused things like thunder. It's the same psychological phenomenon.
Furthermore, I know (and was close to) a good man, who was a devout Christian all his life, who prayed fervently and went to church and taught his children to be Christian. He also just died after a horrifically grueling and painful battle with cancer, his prayers and the prayers of his family and friends and church having gone unanswered. If we apply the same criteria to this situation as to your mother's, then it would be evidence that god does not exist. Of course, I don't think it's evidence for any such thing. I'm saying the criteria is insufficient.
I can understand that, but might I add that I not once mentioned prayer. So many people think that the only way it is possible to communicate with God is though prayer. If applying the basic principles of Christianity, in which God knows you hearts desire and knows all of your thoughts, and I do believe this to be true for the record, then he will act accordingly. If you pray with the mindset of, "Well, heal me Lord if it's your will." then He may or may not. I've seen this happen with my grandmother, who passed almost 2 years ago. Not once did anyone declare healing on her life. And I do believe in the power of speech. You speak it, and it will come back around to you, and not necessarily in the way you'd expect. I'm not saying that it's your friend's fault that he died, and I am sorry for your loss, but I do believe that there could have been more done to at least improve his dying days. My condolences though.
Quote from: not your typical...I can understand that, but might I add that I not once mentioned prayer. So many people think that the only way it is possible to communicate with God is though prayer. If applying the basic principles of Christianity, in which God knows you hearts desire and knows all of your thoughts, and I do believe this to be true for the record, then he will act accordingly. If you pray with the mindset of, "Well, heal me Lord if it's your will." then He may or may not. I've seen this happen with my grandmother, who passed almost 2 years ago. Not once did anyone declare healing on her life. And I do believe in the power of speech. You speak it, and it will come back around to you, and not necessarily in the way you'd expect. I'm not saying that it's your friend's fault that he died, and I am sorry for your loss, but I do believe that there could have been more done to at least improve his dying days. My condolences though.
Prayer was hardly relevant to my main point. The fact is that healings, deaths, or anything in between cannot be used as evidence for a god without something more substantial, much less a specific god, like Yahweh. What you said about the power of speech is an unqualified claim (I presume you mean powerful in some supernatural way - of course it's powerful culturally. I can't imagine that anyone would deny that.), with no evidence to back it up. In regards to my friend, you're simply mistaken. I can't imagine what you mean when you say "there could have been more done to at least improve his dying days". Do you mean a different type of appeal to god? If god is truly omniscient, then he shouldn't at all care about "declaring healing". That would be a silly and useless endeavor, and even more silly for god to make it some kind of qualifier for who he heals and who he doesn't. Furthermore, if god really is so benevolent, and goes about healing diseases and whatnot, then why do diseases even exist? If god created everything, then that includes childhood leukemia and HIV and Alzheimer's and SIDS. That includes earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. And do not tell me that those things only happen to the wicked, or the faithless, or the spiritually bankrupt. I mean no disrespect, but why your mother? Surely some of the people in the world trade center deserved a little divine intervention. Or the victims of the Haitian earthquake. Or one of the many African children who have been given HIV by their mothers. Why do they not wake up and find themselves miraculously cured? Pneumonia is a bacterial infection that may be killed by the human immune system. AIDS is not, and this is why there are no purported "miracles" in regards to people with AIDS. Unless, of course, we submit that god only intervenes in cases where self-healing is entirely plausible, anyway. We may not pick and choose. We may not say "here are a thousand unjust deaths, but look! Someone improbably survived. It's a miracle! Praise god." To do so is to ignore the facts before us.
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 13, 2011, 08:41:18 PM
I mean no disrespect, but why your mother?
I'm not gonna bullshit and answer to that, or give you some lame ass quote about how 'God works in mysterious ways.' Or how 'Everything happens for a reason.' In all honesty, I have no clue as of why my mother lived and yet so many people died in 9/11. All I can really say on that is that when I happened, I was 5, pissed off to think that there is a God who'd allow it to happen, and wanted to kick some asses, punch a wall, cry, and puke. To this day, I still don't claim to even begin to understand why shit happens, but it does. And shit will keep on happening as long as the world turns. But I can say this, while there we're a ton of people who unjustly lost their lives that day, there were also a lot of people who almost lost their lives that day, but instead, lived to tell the tale. As with regards to you friend, I'm not going to deny that personally, I did mean in a spiritual aspect that words have power, but also in a non-spiritual sense.
Quote from: not your typical... on November 13, 2011, 08:54:25 PM
In all honesty, I have no clue as of why my mother lived and yet so many people died in 9/11.
There is no why. Things happen randomly and your mother survived because she was lucky. Nothing more. The people on 9/11 died because they were unlucky. Wrong place wrong time. Why is irrelevant.
If everything that was improbable was attributable to God, then statistics and probability wouldn't exist or be verified experimentally.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 13, 2011, 09:41:37 PM
Quote from: not your typical... on November 13, 2011, 08:54:25 PM
In all honesty, I have no clue as of why my mother lived and yet so many people died in 9/11.
There is no why. Things happen randomly and your mother survived because she was lucky. Nothing more. The people on 9/11 died because they were unlucky. Wrong place wrong time. Why is irrelevant.
If everything that was improbable was attributable to God, then statistics and probability wouldn't exist or be verified experimentally.
Yup.
And I like your SIDS example. Parents, who are doing everything right and love their child, wake up one morning and their baby is dead. There is nothing they could do to prevent it and absolutely no reason for it. Instant, senseless death of a perfectly healthy child without any warning whatsoever. SIDS doesn't happen more to bad families, or atheist families, or abusive families. It happens completely at random and destroys lives. WTF kind of psycho must God be?
I chose the wishy/washy 50/50 answer. Thing is, it's hard to figure how so much order arose out of chaos unaided, but it's also hard to figure how a highly complex entity arose without antecedents. So I shrug and get on with my life. Bad things happen to believers and unbelievers alike, so the question seems moot unless we factor in an afterlife, and here again, it's hard to figure how psychological processes dependent on chemical reactions can continue without those reactions, but it's also hard to figure how chemical reactions all by themselves can generate psychological processes. So I shrug and get on with my life. Oh, and assuming there's an afterlife, we have no way of knowing how life on earth factors into life as a ghost, unless we pick a religion arbitrarily and by sheer luck pick the right one - so I shrug and get on with my life.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on November 18, 2011, 07:53:13 PM
I chose the wishy/washy 50/50 answer. Thing is, it's hard to figure how so much order arose out of chaos unaided,
Have you considered that the "chaos" you are refering to may just be another state of order? I'll give you a simple "for instance": I have a few playing cards. I sort them as follows: 2, A, an empty space, 5, A, 8 and 5. Does seem rather chaotic, yes? However, the cards are actually ordered to spell out my birthday: 21 05 85
Quote from: Asmodean on November 18, 2011, 09:04:13 PM
Have you considered that the "chaos" you are refering to may just be another state of order? I'll give you a simple "for instance": I have a few playing cards. I sort them as follows: 2, A, an empty space, 5, A, 8 and 5. Does seem rather chaotic, yes? However, the cards are actually ordered to spell out my birthday: 21 05 85
Or hand a book to someone who has never seen words or even letters and has no inkling what they might represent. The squiggles on the page would be chaos to that person.
Or show yours truly the engine of an automobile. All the doohickeys would be chaos to me.
So then I look at DNA... yup, chaos, at least to me.
Here's the thing. I think the answers to life's mysteries are behind door number three. Door number one leads to the idea of a super-complex entity arising fully made out of nothing, uncaused, able to cause a universe. Door number two leads to the idea of super-complex organisms arising out of brute matter by myriad fortuitous accidents. Door number three leads to some third idea, one we haven't imagined yet, perhaps because we've fixated on the first two ideas, believing we need to pick either the first one or the second one.
Meanwhile, I'm not smart enough to formulate the third idea, so I shrug and get on with my life, occasionally checking the latest science to see if someone smart enough has proposed the third idea.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on November 18, 2011, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 18, 2011, 09:04:13 PM
Have you considered that the "chaos" you are refering to may just be another state of order? I'll give you a simple "for instance": I have a few playing cards. I sort them as follows: 2, A, an empty space, 5, A, 8 and 5. Does seem rather chaotic, yes? However, the cards are actually ordered to spell out my birthday: 21 05 85
Or hand a book to someone who has never seen words or even letters and has no inkling what they might represent. The squiggles on the page would be chaos to that person.
Or show yours truly the engine of an automobile. All the doohickeys would be chaos to me.
So then I look at DNA... yup, chaos, at least to me.
Here's the thing. I think the answers to life's mysteries are behind door number three. Door number one leads to the idea of a super-complex entity arising fully made out of nothing, uncaused, able to cause a universe. Door number two leads to the idea of super-complex organisms arising out of brute matter by myriad fortuitous accidents. Door number three leads to some third idea, one we haven't imagined yet, perhaps because we've fixated on the first two ideas, believing we need to pick either the first one or the second one.
Meanwhile, I'm not smart enough to formulate the third idea, so I shrug and get on with my life, occasionally checking the latest science to see if someone smart enough has proposed the third idea.
I can't remember who, but I remember a poster here arguing that it's possible that there has been no
cause. Of anything. By anything. And that existence has always been and is the natural state of, well, existence. That idea kind of blew my mind and since then I've thought I'd like to hear some real cerebral types hash that out with regards to scientific theory and whatnot.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 21, 2011, 06:20:37 PM
I can't remember who, but I remember a poster here arguing that it's possible that there has been no cause. Of anything. By anything. And that existence has always been and is the natural state of, well, existence.
Makes sense to me. Matter just always was and always will be. Life, of course, had an origin, and consciousness did as well. These origins intrigue me.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 21, 2011, 06:20:37 PM
I can't remember who, but I remember a poster here arguing that it's possible that there has been no cause. Of anything. By anything. And that existence has always been and is the natural state of, well, existence. That idea kind of blew my mind and since then I've thought I'd like to hear some real cerebral types hash that out with regards to scientific theory and whatnot.
That was Attila (R.I.P.). We joined about the same time, and then he left after a conflict with Earthling, who also disappeared. To quote Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz - "People come and go so quickly here."
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 22, 2011, 02:52:38 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 21, 2011, 06:20:37 PM
I can't remember who, but I remember a poster here arguing that it's possible that there has been no cause. Of anything. By anything. And that existence has always been and is the natural state of, well, existence. That idea kind of blew my mind and since then I've thought I'd like to hear some real cerebral types hash that out with regards to scientific theory and whatnot.
That was Attila (R.I.P.). We joined about the same time, and then he left after a conflict with Earthling, who also disappeared. To quote Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz - "People come and go so quickly here."
Right! Thank you!